Via Tony Marsh's "Only Brennan" comment above, Marsh apparently thinks it makes a lot of sense to consider the idea that somebody was sticking a useless rifle out of the sixth-floor window and didn't fire any shots at all with that rifle.

It's another (of hundreds) of instances where a conspiracy theorist will isolate something separately and then fail to piece it together to make the "whole".

So, Marsh (and other conspiracists) will isolate the information about ONLY Howard Brennan being a witness to a rifle actually being FIRED from the southeast corner of the Depository's sixth floor.

But Marsh also knows, of course, that three spent bullet casings were found directly under that SAME window where other witnesses (besides Brennan) saw a gun. And Oswald's rifle was found on that same sixth floor.

Therefore, could a defense lawyer actually expect a reasonable jury to buy this argument:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, just because Mr. Euins and
Mr. Jackson and Mr. Couch and Mr. Worrell saw a rifle sticking out of
an upper-story window of the Book Depository, and just because
physical evidence of a gunman was found on the sixth floor, this
doesn't mean that you, the jury in this case, have to buy into the
notion that ANYONE AT ALL was firing a rifle from that sixth-floor
window. All the prosecution has got is Howard Brennan! And we all know
what a liar that guy is, right? In other words, you must ALWAYS be
willing to ISOLATE every witness, and you must never, NEVER, be
willing to put these isolated pieces of evidence back together to form
a cohesive whole. Never do that! For, if you do, you'll be playing
right into the hands of the prosecution...and into the hands of your
own common sense. And I know none of you jurors would want that. I
rest my case."

[/Perry Mason off.]

Conspiracy believers love to do this same silly "isolation" trick with the Tippit witnesses too, as they place each of those witnesses into their own separate isolation booth, while failing to see the illogic of their arguments.

Since we know beyond ANY doubt that Lee Oswald was, indeed, travelling on foot near Tenth & Patton (with a gun in his hands) on 11/22/63.....

And since we also know beyond all doubt that the gun that Lee Oswald had on him when he was arrested was, in fact, the gun that murdered J.D. Tippit.....

Then it becomes quite silly for conspiracy theorists to "isolate" a witness like, say, Ted Callaway -- with the CTers always saying that Callaway cannot really be used as a "Tippit Murder Witness", because Callaway didn't actually see anyone firing any bullets at Tippit.

But this is just incredibly silly thinking, due to the OTHER evidence that does exist (in conjunction with Callaway's observations) which proves beyond all possible doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald was Tippit's murderer.

And I'm still scratching my head and wondering how in this wide world a person with obviously above-average intelligence the likes of the late Mr. Harold Weisberg could possibly be silly enough to make a statement like this one (which is a direct, verbatim quote from Weisberg's mouth):

"I have no reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the sixth floor." -- Harold Weisberg

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

No one stuck a rifle outside the window. The acoustical evidence proves that exactly three shots were fired from INSIDE the sniper's nest.

I don't mind if you have only one witness who says he actually saw the rifle firing a shot. Fine with me. But don't misrepresent the historical evidence in this case and claim that it was 20 witnesses, or everyone in Dealey Plaza. Just stick to the facts.

So what [if Oswald's rifle was found on the sixth floor]? I have never argued that his rifle was not fired during the assassination. My point remains that you can not prove that it was Oswald firing those shots.

We all know what a bad witness [Howard Brennan] was and we know that he refused to identify Oswald the first time, until the cops took him aside and had a little talk with him. That might come out in court. Of course, the Zapruder film would not come out in court which shows that he was looking at the limo at the time of the shots, not up at the TSBD.

I guess you've never been in court. A defense attorney who does not attack the credibility of the state's star witness should be disbarred.

JEAN DAVISON SAID:

Brennan said that when he first looked up at the TSBD, Oswald was taking aim for his last shot. Zapruder had already panned past him by then, so there's no contradiction.

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Some WC defenders claim that the proof that Oswald shot the President is that he left his wedding ring on the dresser.

JEAN DAVISON SAID:

Please name anyone who has said that, Tony. The ring is only one of many pieces of circumstantial evidence, not proof. And please don't say "Google it." That's a dodge.

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Or some WC defenders claim that the proof that it was an International Communist Conspiracy was when Oswald raised his right fist to give the Communist salute. Ask Jean [Davison] about that. But you never dare to ridicule them.

JEAN DAVISON SAID:

Yes, ask me! I've never claimed there was an international communist conspiracy or that Oswald's raised fist was a communist salute.

More irony -- today you [Tony Marsh] posted this:

QUOTE:

"No, not what I said at all. Let me repeat this for about the millionth time. Never presume to tell me what I agree to. Never. All you do is misinterpret and misrepresent what I have said."

UNQUOTE

That's exactly what I'm saying to you, Tony.

And I'm not "attacking" you any more than you're "attacking" me. This is a debate forum, right? Anyway, relax. Have a nice day.

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

The HSCA acoustical tests proved that exactly three shots came from the sniper's nest. If they had not accidentally discovered the grassy knoll shot, each and every one of you WC defenders would be bashing us conspiracy believers over the head with it every day, every hour, that now we have the scientific proof that Oswald killed JFK.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No. Not at all. No reasonable-thinking LNer would be doing any such silly thing. And that's because the acoustical evidence -- ALL of it, and not just the "4th Shot" -- is pure junk and has been destroyed by the NAS study in 1982.

Obviously, if the limo was long gone from the scene of the crime when the acoustical "impulse patterns" were being recorded on the Dictabelt at DPD (and the limousine was, indeed, long gone from Dealey Plaza at that time), then NONE of those impulse patterns can possibly be gunshots -- not the "4th shot" or the three impulse patterns that you claim prove that 3 shots were fired from the Sniper's Nest.

All of that acoustics stuff is garbage. I.E., all of those "impulse patterns" had to have been caused by something other than gunshots--because all of the gunshots that were fired that day had already been fired by the time those impulse sounds were being recorded. (Or do you want to theorize that even sixty seconds AFTER the assassination there were still some gunmen firing away at JFK, even though his car was on Stemmons Freeway by that time?)

Why in the world are you still propping up ANY portion of the HSCA's acoustical nightmare, Tony? Just for the fun of hanging on to a discredited theory? It's bizarre that someone would do that. (Oops, check that--you're a conspiracy theorist. And that's what they do every day--hang on to valueless and worthless information and theories. My mistake.)

And I just love Robert Groden's recent claims (via a Black Op Radio appearance a month or two ago) about how he now thinks that up to FIFTEEN shots were fired in Dealey Plaza.

Now, just put that "15-shot" theory right next to the "Dictabelt" theory -- and what we'd have to believe is that there must have been 15 separate acoustical fingerprints of gunshots on that Dictabelt.

And, to put Groden's 15-shot theory into another context, we'd have to believe that EVERY witness in Dealey Plaza got the number of shots wrong. Even A.J. Millican, who heard only eight. (Do "silenced" shots leave the same "acoustical fingerprint" as audible ones?)

Groden must actually think that the approx. 75% of the earwitnesses who heard exactly THREE shots must have somehow (inexplicably) missed hearing the other TWELVE gunshots. TWELVE shots missed being heard!

Yeah, sure Bob.

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Then show me what caused them [the impulse patterns on the DPD Dictabelt recording] and prove it.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I haven't the foggiest idea what caused the impulse patterns on the Dictabelt (just static, probably), but it couldn't possibly have been gunshots -- for two very good reasons:

1.) The sounds were recorded at about 12:31, not 12:30.

and

2.) There's no motorcycle anywhere near the corner of Elm & Houston at the time of the first shot -- which is proven by taking just one look at Robert Hughes' film.